FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/10/2002 10:45:31 PM PDT by HAL9000
WASHINGTON - There's a sound of desperation coming out of the Democratic camp these days. That's what we must call it when some prominent Democrats are saying, in effect, that the current crop of Democratic presidential possibilities can't beat George W. Bush in 2004 and they would like to have Republican John McCain as their candidate.It's a rather silly wish. Senator McCain is prolife, supports school vouchers, favors national missile defense, and backs a private-investment option for Social Security, and much more that shows he may be an attractive independent thinker – but no Democrat.
Still, in the year leading up to the 1992 presidential race there also was that note of Democratic desperation in the air. Nobody thought he or she could beat President Bush, particularly after his popularity ratings shot up after the Gulf War. The leading Democratic possibility, Mario Cuomo, said he wasn't interested in running. So did several others, like Richard Gephardt and Tom Foley.
But Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton hung in there. The word I got from Mr. Clinton's longtime friend and adviser, former Democratic national chairman John White, was that Clinton had decided to make the run because even if he lost, he would put himself in a position to be the candidate four years later.
Well, as we all know, it worked out better than Clinton expected.
So my guess is that another Clinton – the senator from New York, who was so much a part of that 1992 campaign – is remembering all this. I won't be surprised at all if she jumps into a race that will be looked upon in advance as a "no win" for any Democratic contender.
Yes, Mrs. Clinton has said she won't run for president in '04. But Bill told voters he would stay in his governorship for the full term – and didn't. So I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary follows a similar course.
How strong a candidate would Senator Clinton be? I checked with pollster John Zogby and he fortified with facts my guess that she could become a strong candidate. He said that in his polling of possible Democrats, including former Vice President Gore, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Evan Bayh, Rep. Dick Gephardt, and Sen. John Kerry, among others, Clinton "always finishes a strong second to Gore."
"But aren't there so many Clinton 'haters' out there who would almost make her victory an impossibility?" I asked Mr. Zogby. He said that what he called Mrs. Clinton's "strong negatives" were up to 46 percent during her race for senator – a race that she won. Now, he said, because of her performance in office, her negatives are "down in the mid-30s."
Zogby said it was among the "mushy middle" of negative voters that Mrs. Clinton has picked up supporters by doing what they see as a good job. He said the rest of the negatives come from hard-core haters of the Clintons, who are "under no circumstances" ever going to vote for her.
From this Zogby wisdom I can conclude that Senator Clinton might make a good candidate: Indeed, nationally, some of that "mushy middle" might be persuaded to come over to her side if she puts on an effective campaign.
But most important: Bill Clinton, despite his travails, remains popular among the voters at large. Isn't it arguable that his popularity, or much of it, might well be transferred to his wife?
I'll tell you why I really think she will run. Back in late summer 1991, Bill Clinton, who had indicated he would get into the race, decided that disclosures about his marital infidelity, which he knew were coming, would kill his chances. He told friends he would drop out. But it was Hillary who wouldn't give up on that race. It was she who thought up the idea of the two of them coming to the Monitor breakfast in September to see if they couldn't put the scandals behind them by telling the reporters that they had worked out these problems between them.
Encouraged by the press response to this approach to their problem, Bill Clinton soon threw his hat into the ring. His personal problems didn't end. But he had pushed ahead into the race – at Hillary's urgings.
So it is that even if the sky may be dark for her prospects, I think Hillary will run. She'll remember how Bill prevailed in the primary and the election after that early period when his prospects didn't look at all good.
She will also figure that even if she loses, she can put herself in a good position for being the nominee in 2008, when the prospect for winning may be much better.
"Will you guarantee all of us," asked newsman Craig Cannon on Oct. 15, 1990, "that if re-elected, there is absolutely, positively no way that you'll run for any other political office and that you'll serve out your term in full?""You bet," Clinton declared. "I told you when I announced for governor I intended to run, and that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna serve four years. I made that decision when I decided to run. I'm being considered for as a candidate for governor. That's the job I want. That's the job I'll do for the next four years."
Taking Bill Clinton at his word: Basking in a false and empty light - by Meredith Oakley, October 4, 1991
And here is the FR link, posted by someone who forgot to insert paragraph tags.
hhh.
Ah, they speak of "those without a lobotomy." Can you think of ANY "circimstances" that would make any honest, moderately-sane person vote for her???
(BTW: Contempt is not the same as "hatred.")
I'll second that ..
IMO .. Hillary is more dangerous the her creepy husband
You think they were talkin' about us? See y'all tomorrow.
A liberal friend was little shocked at me because I said I hated the Clinton's and couldn't understand why
I said we didn't like Carter's politics but we didn't hate him like we hate the Clinton's
Then I told her to think about it
-------------------
The problem is, this country is filled with people who are not honest or moderately sane. That's why Bubba was not removed from office although he showed a vast array of signs of serious mental disorder. That's why Hillary was elected senator from a state she had seldom been in.
You underestimate the liberal media. Her husband survived and so could she.
His word is dirt.
Not a statesman is he, but a common, run-of-the-mill, dime-a-dozen politician.
A mere opportunist.
A man whose word is fallow ground not because it is unwanted but because it is barren, bereft of the clean-smelling goodness that nurtures wholesome things.
Those of us who cling to the precepts of another age, a time in which a man's word was his bond, and, morally, bailing out was not an option, cannot join the madding crowd in celebrating what is for some Bill Clinton's finest hour.
We cannot rejoice in treachery.
The bleaters who care more for celebrity than veracity are basking in a false and empty light. They trumpet the basest form of political expediency, for they revel amid the debris of a broken promise.
Clinton will never accept that assessment of his actions or his following. He subscribes to the credo that the anointed must rule the empire, and he has anointed himself. In his ambition-blinded eyes, one released from a promise has not broken any promise.
He ignores the fact that he granted his own pardon.
Clinton announced in late summer that he would take a three-week tour of the state to see whether Arkansans wanted to release him from the promise, made in October 1990, not to seek the presidency if re-elected governor.
Actually, he was on the road only about three days, and he later confessed that he hadn't even bothered to ask those with whom he spoke whether they would release him from the promise.
That is of little consequence, perhaps, for he was meeting with sycophants who would have told him, had he asked, that his bulbous nose was tiny and, in fact, would grace the face of Helen of Troy.
His delusion, therefore, is not entirely self-induced. The strains of Camelot's anthem have followed him for 15 years because he has been able to inspire the young and the beautiful to visions of political grandeur while reassuring their elders that chivalry is not dead.
They who will never be great would settle for a seat, however briefly held, at the foot of greatness. They would pardon any sin--indeed, deny its very existence--for a moment spent basking in the false and empty light of the anointed.
In their adoring minds, Bill Clinton wants to be president; therefore, Bill Clinton should be president.
Clinton has never been known for keeping his word. There is a Scottish proverb that fits his particular code of honor: He never lies but when the holly is green.
If there remained any doubt about that--rather, if there remained any hope that even Clinton would not betray a pledge made before a statewide television audience--it gulped its last breath at the moment those fateful words of wishdom rang through the trees of the Old State House.
"Will you guarantee all of us," asked newsman Craig Cannon on Oct. 15, 1990, "that if re-elected, there is absolutely, positively no way that you'll run for any other political office and that you'll serve out your term in full?"
"You bet," Clinton declared. "I told you when I announced for governor I intended to run, and that's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna serve four years. I made that decision when I decided to run. I'm being considered for as a candidate for governor. That's the job I want. That's the job I'll do for the next four years."
Contrary to his very public declaration, Clinton does not want to be governor of Arkansas. Neither does he intend to perform that job--although he is perfectly willing to draw a governor's salary, to accumulate a governor's pension credits and to keep a change of clothing at the Governor's Mansion while he traverses the country making other statements he does not mean and other promises he will not keep.
Associate Editor Meredith Oakley's column appears every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. This article was published on Sunday, September 13, 1998 RETURN to Editorial Section
No he doesn't. The most recent poll showed him to be the least popular ex-president of the last 40 years when it comes to job performance (except for Nixon, of course), and his personal ratings are somewhere in the 20% range.
There are other oddities and half-truths in this article. For example, Zogby says her job performance ratings are up somewhat, but he doesn't say amongst who. She only serves one state, so the rest of the country can't be reliably polled on the question, and we already know New Yorkers will vote for her.
Because of all those little weirdnesses, I can only conclude that this article was specifically commissioned by somebody for some reason, and Mr. Sperling didn't just decide to write a column about Hillary on his own. In any event, it's completely unreliable in its arguments on her chances of winning, or even getting the nomination.
That's only 50% true in the last 50 years. There have been four such elections in that time. Who was the Democrat nominee in 1984? Former Vice President Mondale. Who was the Democrat nominee in 1956? Adlai Stevenson in a rematch. You're right in '76 and '92.
If experience makes any difference, consider this. The electable person with the most experience at President is Hillary!. She is also upsetting some of her core constituency recently with moves to the center. There's no reason to do this to retain her seat in New York. It only makes sense in the context of running for President.
I'm betting that some nobody will snatch the nomination from Gore in a very nasty fight.
One can hope there's a nasty fight. The longer the better. I think Algore will go down early and won't reach New Hampshire (if he decides to run at all), but the elections are a long ways off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.